Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials
have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or
face fines and jail time.
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the
city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation
and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the
union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at
same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday October 17, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and
the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term
and $1,000 finefor each daythey decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony
could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in
fines.Government Coercion
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both
ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
They are“evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that
“God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained
marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city
ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation
and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.
Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need
not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex
relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all
citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association,
free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect
citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.
The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989.
Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their
beliefs.
After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does
not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have
the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens
may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex
ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They
should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs
and their livelihood.What Can Be Done
At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any
individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their
beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual
relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited
from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy,
employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored
by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than
100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee,
R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the
federal government from taking such adverse actions.
States need similar policy protections, including broad protections
provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and
specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.
Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion
Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial
burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that
such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been
pursued through the least restrictive means possible.Protecting Religious Liberty
It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to
perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being
pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues
where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county
clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.
States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they
form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public
square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious
that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious
ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion
arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th
Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion,
substantive due process, and equal protection.”
Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the
embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil
sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence
even amid disagreement.(By Ryan T. Anderson Oct 18, 2014 )

About Me

I am a thoroughly civilized, humane, cosmopolitan, polished, restrained, enjoyable, entertaining Info-maniac. I am a staunch exponent of individual dignity, freedom, equal access to legal services, and equal protection of the law. Here I hope to demonstrate my emotional restraint, humbleness of sentiment, psychological subtlety, lucid style, and simple language, without evading political reality or eternal truth. Daily I am excited that I have the right to create the beginning of a new self and to challenge old habits and attitudes I no longer choose to accept. I choose to relax in the present with my direction firmly in mind. I have an enormous capacity for creative and clever ideas and thoughts. It is phenomenal what I can do. I am capable of so much learning and absorbing a lot of information. My potential is a source of pleasant surprise for me.
Each day, I increase in knowledge, skills, strength, faith, and abilities.With each adventure, the boundary hemming in my potential expands easily to accomodate my growth and achievements.